The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Donald H]

I'd wager that they lost most of that support with the OIC in May. Now, even hunters and farmers don't trust them due to their initial ban on .10 and .12 ga shotguns.

That could be true.

When those 1500 Canadians polled by Liberal friendly pollsters are all in urban areas and asked a loaded question, then, yes, support for an "assault weapons ban" and "handgun ban" are way up there.  So, why not ask this question:

"Do you support the confiscation of legally owned, properly stored and safely used firearms from lawful Canadian owners?"  or "Do you support the banning of lawfully owned handguns which are used only for sport shooting in Canada?"

That's a hard one to answer but in good faith I'll try. They are unable to differentiate between the two is the only reason I can think of. If you are intent on carrying on a conversation in good faith then I'll try to answer your questions, in the interest of a fruitful discussion.

How are pro-gun groups pushing the envelope?

I didn't say pro-gun groups are pushing the envelope, I said they shouldn't. Other countries have shown that as population density grows, certain changes need to be made to gun ownership and other gun related considerations. It's my opinion that if not then the current situation in the US is allowed to develop. How that pretains to Canada and Canadians is going to depend on public opinion.

The Liberals didn't act in good faith when passing the latest rounds of firearms legislation.  A case in point is the RCMP arbitrarily adding several hundred makes and models to the banned list after the OIC came into force without any oversight, consultation or notification to gun owners.  Why should the Liberals expect good faith in return?

I'm not familiar with the RCMP's additions. But it's a good question because a police force could tend to be over-restrictive of guns and gun owner's rights. And certainly the politicians would trust them on their preferences.

Would you think that consistently and diligently enforcing the existing firearms laws, including the Customs Act, and targeting criminals and criminal organizations would be a good start?

I won't attempt to answer that sort of question.

Far enough.  So you agree, then, that our current suite of firearms laws in Canada are sufficient to regulate civilian ownership?  Do you support the May 1st OIC?  Bill C-71?  Are they/will they be, in your opinion, reasonable and effective in combating the criminal use of firearms in Canada and why?

That's a detailed question that would call for me to do a study of what the OIC contains. I think it's reasonable to ask you a question at this point. What are you envisioning my position to be?
A person with a gun isn't a bad guy with a gun until he uses his/her gun for some illegal activity. This raises the issure of crime and punishment in which the liberal position is more focused on rehabilitation while the conservative position is almost always focused on punishment. The two extremes appear to me to be Norway and the US. How is Norway doing on gun violence?

I no longer sport hunt, not because I lost the thrill of it but because my current family and work life makes it very complicated to do so.  But, when I did, I ate what I killed.

I don't know you and so I have no reason to not believe you. I've asked the same question quite a few times to gun owners and not once have I received an answer of them killing for fun. But I've been there Haggis and I killed for fun. 

I live in a rural area.  Today I use my firearms primarily for sport shooting (IPSC, IDPA, skeet and sporting clays) and, when needed, for predator control.

I was heavily into gun sports too. Large animal hunting, bird hunting of all varieties, target shooting at a level of precision, Trap clays, reloading, machining cartricges, casting lead, and you name it, I've probably done it.
[/quote]

 

[Haggis]

What would be the value of the buyback? How will the feds determine fair market value? Since owners cannot use or sell the now prohibited firearms, will it be .10 cents on the dollar? (Extreme but I think you get my drift)

As a result of the OIC you cannot transfer/sell any banned firearm within Canada. Fair market value here is zero.  Also, you cannot sell to a foreign buyer if the buyer is in a country that will not allow importation, which even includes the US.  Again, this makes the fair market value zero.

Even if you receive compensation of $0.10 on the dollar, it will likely be deemed taxable.

 

[Haggis]

That's a hard one to answer but in good faith I'll try. They are unable to differentiate between the two is the only reason I can think of.

No, they are unwilling to differentiate between the two because to do so would compromise the agenda that all guns are bad and only the police and military should have guns.

If you are intent on carrying on a conversation in good faith then I'll try to answer your questions, in the interest of a fruitful discussion.

I believe I have done so.

I didn't say pro-gun groups are pushing the envelope, I said they shouldn't.

  Al that the mainstream firearms community in Canada wants from their government (blue or red) is to be left alone to practice their sport in peace.  They want the focus to be on criminal use.  Yes, like any community, there are fringe segments (i.e. the concealed carry crowd) but even they simply want to be allowed to legally use (and carry?) firearms responsibly.

Other countries have shown that as population density grows, certain changes need to be made to gun ownership and other gun related considerations. It's my opinion that if not then the current situation in the US is allowed to develop.

  That's a hollow comparison as the US has vastly different laws and culture than Canada regarding firearms.

I won't attempt to answer that sort of question.

  Why not?  It is central to the discussion over the past 59 pages of this thread.

I think it's reasonable to ask you a question at this point. What are you envisioning my position to be?

You have framed my belief in your position with your statement, below,

A person with a gun isn't a bad guy with a gun until he uses his/her gun for some illegal activity.

which echoes that of two Liberal MPs who recently said "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'" and another who quipped "lawful gun owners are only law abiding until they are not".
 

This raises the issue of crime and punishment in which the liberal position is more focused on rehabilitation while the conservative position is almost always focused on punishment. The two extremes appear to me to be Norway and the US. How is Norway doing on gun violence?

A comparison of Norway and Canada would be more relevant to the discussion.  This shows almost equal rates of gun crimes with Norway taking a 2% lead.  Overlay the gun ownership rates and you will see that the rate of firearms ownership is lower (10%) than in Canada (18.5%) despite having a similar suite of firearms laws.  So, in essence, Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.

 

[Donald H]

You have framed my belief in your position with your statement, below, which echoes that of two Liberal MPs who recently said "there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'"

I find that very offensive because that in no way frames my position.

and another who quipped "lawful gun owners are only law abiding until they are not".

That's not the way I would say it but by simple logic it's true. There's no room to debate that but I would guess that the MP who said it was more intent on being inflammatory as opposed to being helpful.
 

A comparison of Norway and Canada would be more relevant to the discussion.  This shows almost equal rates of gun crimes with Norway taking a 2% lead.  Overlay the gun ownership rates and you will see that the rate of firearms ownership is lower (10%) than in Canada (18.5%) despite having a similar suite of firearms laws.  So, in essence, Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.

I used Norway because it's the extreme, in my understanding, on prison reform and rehabilitation of criminals, and it's success rate has been recorded as outstanding.
I'm really not understanding your comparisons of Norway to Canada, but I can accept that Canada is safer from gun violence than Norway.

My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.

edit: I got it wrong. Apparently Canadians own about 20,000,000 guns and about 1 million handguns. Americans own more than one gun per person. I haven't been able to find out how many handguns Americans own?

 

[Haggis]

I find that very offensive because that in no way frames my position.

  You asked and I answered honestly.

I'd guess that the MP who said it was more intent on being inflammatory as opposed to being helpful.

Of course he was!  Why let facts get in the way of a bad policy?
 

I used Norway because it's the extreme, in my understanding, on prison reform and rehabilitation of
criminals, and it's success rate has been recorded as outstanding.

Go back to the link I provided and check out their stats for violent sexual offences.  I'd rather be a woman in Canada.

My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.

Canada:  34.7 known legal guns per 100 population.
USA: 120.5 known legal guns per 100 population.

 

[Donald H]

  You asked and I answered honestly.

That which you have accused me of being representative of my position.

"there is no such thing as a 'responsible gun owner'"

I don't find it productive to continue a discussion on those terms.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=Donald H]

My understanding is that Canada has as many guns as America has, per capita. I'll check that out but I'll let it stand for now.

[/quote]

I own 9 handguns.  What's your point?

 

[Haggis]

I own 9 handguns.  What's your point?

That 99 other upstanding Canadians own the other 25.7 guns.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Canada:  34.7 known legal guns per 100 population.
USA: 120.5 known legal guns per 100 population.

I would question Canada numbers. Before the long gun registry went into effect they estimated there was 20-30 million firearms in Canada (in 1994), as soon as the long gun registry went into effect there was only 8 million firearms. I suspect there is roughly 1 gun per person in country simply due to the amount of people out there with guns kept in their family or at camps, etc. which were never recorded yet are still there. Plus when the long gun registry was abolished all those guns which were 'illegal' became legal again.

 

[Weinie]

I would question Canada numbers. Before the long gun registry went into effect they estimated there was 20-30 million firearms in Canada (in 1994), as soon as the long gun registry went into effect there was only 8 million firearms. I suspect there is roughly 1 gun per person in country simply due to the amount of people out there with guns kept in their family or at camps, etc. which were never recorded yet are still there. Plus when the long gun registry was abolished all those guns which were 'illegal' became legal again.

We had more than 20 rifles/shotguns "stored" at my grandfathers/grandmothers place in N.S. in the 70's/80's; any of which were available to the assorted uncles/cousins/grandkids on demand, depending on the season.  My grandfather, who died in the late 70's, would have resisted to his core any federal restrictions on his right to own a weapon; he was a salt of the earth farmer who hunted to feed his family, and killed foxes who got into his barn.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We had more than 20 rifles/shotguns "stored" at my grandfathers/grandmothers place in N.S. in the 70's/80's; any of which were available to the assorted uncles/cousins/grandkids on demand, depending on the season.  My grandfather, who died in the late 70's, would have resisted to his core any federal restrictions on his right to own a weapon; he was a salt of the earth farmer who hunted to feed his family, and killed foxes who got into his barn.

And yet, no one was killed or injured by any firearms. Typical Canadians, eh?

Sadly, media coverage of US gun violence has made us afraid of something nasty that is much, much less likely to happen in Canada. And be careful out there.... like don't fall, or something really dangerous like that...

Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

"Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

Thirty-five per cent more likely to be shot to death than Canadians are to die of a fall.

American firearm death rates are almost three times higher than Canadian death rates of ovarian cancer and Parkinson’s; 42 per cent higher than Canadian prostate cancer deaths; 10 per cent higher than pneumonia."

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/

 

[Haggis]

And yet, no one was killed or injured by any firearms. Typical Canadians, eh?

Sadly, media coverage of US gun violence has made us afraid of something nasty that is much, much less likely to happen in Canada. And be careful out there.... like don't fall, or something really dangerous like that...

Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

"Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

Thirty-five per cent more likely to be shot to death than Canadians are to die of a fall.

American firearm death rates are almost three times higher than Canadian death rates of ovarian cancer and Parkinson’s; 42 per cent higher than Canadian prostate cancer deaths; 10 per cent higher than pneumonia."

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/

Why are you stating fact in what should be an emotionally driven discussion?  There's no room for the truth in the gun control debate.

 

[Eaglelord17]

.25 and .32 calibre handguns were banned due to their being easily concealed.

Except they didn't need to ban it on caliber, their barrel length law would have included them anyways. It just goes to show how they didn't understand the legislation they were writing at the time.

Gun violence by the numbers: How America, Canada and the world compare

"Overall, Americans are almost 70 per cent more likely to die at the end of a gun — shot by someone else, by themselves, by accident — than Canadians are to die in a car accident.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2378037/gun-violence-by-the-numbers-how-america-canada-and-the-world-compare/

And that argument gets vague and shifty. If you want to do equal comparisons you do a 1 for 1, not add it all together and look at how big the numbers are.

When you remove suicide from the numbers for America you end up with 3.18 deaths per 100,000 which is lower than all the other Canadian causes of death listed. The long gun death rate (which include all those scary firearms like ARs and AKs) is basically the same per capita in the USA as it is in Canada. It is handgun deaths where the difference is. Most of those are in those specific urban gang filled areas.

The USA has a suicide rate of 10.1 per 100,000, which is the same as Canada. It is not a fair comparison to add the firearm murder rate to their numbers and not ours and say look it is higher. Again as I have said before, if you make it more controlled as to who has access to firearms/reduce the numbers available, the firearm suicide rate will go down. However the overall suicide rate stays the same as you haven't addressed why people are killing themselves.

If that article was trying to be fair, based on how they were gathering their numbers for firearms deaths, they would have added together all the cancer deaths to one category as that is what they did for firearms. Cancer deaths would then be 23.8 per 100,000, which is over double the firearm numbers. Just remember there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[Haggis]

The USA has a suicide rate of 10.1 per 100,000, which is the same as Canada. It is not a fair comparison to add the firearm murder rate to their numbers and not ours and say look it is higher. Again as I have said before, if you make it more controlled as to who has access to firearms/reduce the numbers available, the firearm suicide rate will go down.

Access to firearms, particularly handguns, is far easier in the US where in many cases, handguns are kept loaded and easily accessed due to the fear of violent crime, the "right" to firearms and the patchwork of federal, state and local laws governing storage, use and transportation.  In Canada, it is far harder to access one's legally stored handgun on impulse, in a fit of anger or emotional turmoil.

The guns banned by OIC were not the ones being used in suicides in Canada. Someone wanting to get legal access to a firearms they don't already have to do themselves harm will most probably choose another means as the process takes a while.  The black market, although far more expensive, is an easier and quicker source.  Those contemplating suicide are not going to be too concerned by the cost of the means.  If it's immediately unaffordable, they will choose another means.

 

[Donald H]

I would question Canada numbers. Before the long gun registry went into effect they estimated there was 20-30 million firearms in Canada (in 1994), as soon as the long gun registry went into effect there was only 8 million firearms. I suspect there is roughly 1 gun per person in country simply due to the amount of people out there with guns kept in their family or at camps, etc. which were never recorded yet are still there. Plus when the long gun registry was abolished all those guns which were 'illegal' became legal again.

I think your estimate of 1 gun per person is pretty close to right. That's the reason I first said that America's guns closely equal Canada's guns, per capita. Somewhere along the line I also found stats that said 3,000,000 Canadians owned guns and the average was about 6 or 7 per gun owner.

 

[Haggis]

I think your estimate of 1 gun per person is pretty close to right. That's the reason I first said that America's guns closely equal Canada's guns, per capita. Somewhere along the line I also found stats that said 3,000,000 Canadians owned guns and the average was about 6 or 7 per gun owner.

The RCMP claims there are about 2.2 million PAL holders in Canada.  Those are legal gun owners.  You may assume that each owns at least one firearm.  Some I know have none, others several.  Include the estimated 750,000 to 1 million illegal guns in the hands of criminals of various sorts and that may be a fair estimate.

But, the government is only going after legal guns with their OIC.  Specifically stated, any related compensated confiscation (AKA "buyback") will only be offered for LEGAL guns. 

Remember that.

You, a lawful, licensed, trained gun owner and your legally purchased, stored, transported and used guns are more dangerous and worthy of more government attention and money (<$600M)  than gang bangers, drug dealers, smugglers, snakeheads, outlaw bikers, sovereign citizens, homegrown radicals, antifa or indigenous groups and their guns ($327M).

 

[suffolkowner]

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/09/17/feds-uncertain-firearm-buy-back-will-start-before-amnesty-for-banned-guns-ends/

Hardly surprising, although you have to wonder how New Zealand pulled it off.

 

[Haggis]

Hardly surprising, although you have to wonder how New Zealand pulled it off.

Two possibilities I see:

NZ likely had a plan in place long before the Christchurch massacre and was waiting for a catalyst to implement it, or it was administered in-house without turning it into a vote pandering Liberal make-work project.

In our case the administrative costs of setting up and implementing the program will far exceed what might be paid to confiscate all the prohibited firearms.

 

[Ostrozac]

https://ipolitics.ca/2020/09/17/feds-uncertain-firearm-buy-back-will-start-before-amnesty-for-banned-guns-ends/

Hardly surprising, although you have to wonder how New Zealand pulled it off.

New Zealand conducted their gun buyback project in house, through their national police service. Canada wants to contract ours out, during a global pandemic, while the whole of government, including PWGSC and Treasury Board, as well as industry, are all running at somewhat reduced capacity. Add to that the fact that the Canadian government's start state for procurement and contracts wasn't that impressive to begin with, even without a global crisis.

New Zealand's gun buyback program also kind of didn't work. Estimates are that somewhere between only 1/4 and 1/3 of New Zealand's newly banned firearms were actually bought back -- the vast majority have gone underground or to the black market.

The RCMP would probably be just as capable of running an ineffective gun buyback program as New Zealand Police. But contracting it out? This year? That's a brave move, Prime Minister.

 

[Haggis]

The RCMP would probably be just as capable of running an ineffective gun buyback program as New Zealand Police. But contracting it out? This year? That's a brave move, Prime Minister.

That unspent $900M in WE money has to go somewhere.